Aborigines are Australian, too

Bob Liddle

Bob Liddle is a Northern Territory businessman who runs
his own resource consulting firm, R. Liddle & Associates.

Aborigines, themselves, are divided on the desirability of a treaty.  Bob Liddle sees it as indicative of the unproductive paternalism which pervades Aboriginal affairs and as depriving Aborigines of the right to full Australian citizenship.

AS Australia ends its Bicentennial year amid protests by some of its Aboriginal population, one proposal that has cropped up has been for a treaty or compact between the Government and its Aboriginal citizens that would recognise the Aborigines' prior ownership of the land.  Such a treaty, however, is inherently divisive and would undoubtedly create more problems than it should.  In particular it would perpetuate differences and increase resentment at a time when we should be seeking to weld a strong nation out of Australia's many ethnic and cultural components.

When it comes to policy, regret is pointless and atonement gives satisfaction only to the atoner -- not the one who may have been offended.  Similarly, a treaty with the Aboriginal people would be an example of the worst form of emotional paternalism, an attempt to turn back the clock, a desire to recognise in 1988 a wrong that was not perceived as a wrong in 1788.  This is not likely to serve Aboriginal interests.

The present national ferment about Aborigines and other minority groups seems to derive from two sources:  first, general Australian ignorance about history and the rest of the world;  second, an exaggerated paternalistic wish to ensure that every possible contingency is tied into some piece of legislation.  Thus we have today reached a point in Australia where it is not a joke to say that every committee is looking for its ideal member:  a black, handicapped, Greek-speaking, anti-nuclear, refugee lesbian from a single-parent family dedicated to preventing the logging of whales in rain forests.

Indeed, there is a cultural tendency in Australia to believe that nothing comparable has ever happened anywhere else.  Yet the history of the world is full of incidents that compare with Australia's treatment of Aborigines.  I believe that the current urgent desire to atone for European occupation of this country and the treatment of Aboriginal people is totally misguided.  The landing of the British on this soil 200 years ago this 18 January and their subsequent actions were in accord with international law and the accepted attitudes and practices of the time.  Indeed, in the context of the times, Captain Arthur Phillip's treatment of the Aborigines around the Botany Bay area was remarkable for its leniency and benevolence.

OFFENSIVE TO OTHERS

Apart from the dubious assumption that Aborigines can be addressed en masse -- anyone who understands Aborigines knows that Aborigines have a host of tribal and other associations that would have to be dealt with -- a treaty between the Government and Aborigines would be offensive and totally irrelevant to the millions of Australians whose families played no part in the European settlement.  I am not sure, for example, that Australians of Chinese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and dozens of other ethnic backgrounds would appreciate being included in the mass apology of a treaty.  Perhaps the Australian Government will then counter with a treaty between the Aborigines and only those Australians who feel guilty.

FULL CITIZENS

The point is that since 1967 we Aborigines have all been full Australians under the Constitution, and that is the way we should be regarded.  To single out Aborigines as a race apart by means of a treaty or compact is reminiscent of Fiji, South Africa, Malaysia, or any other country where measures have been taken to protect permanently the interests of one particular group.  The end result is smouldering resentment, which ultimately finds expression in incidents of racial conflagration, as the world's headlines all too sadly demonstrate day after day.

Of course, there is much that can be done to help Aborigines improve their lot.  Some Aboriginal values, attitudes and physical locations stand in the way of their success in the world;  the Pintupi people on the Northern Territory/ Western Australian border, for example, suffer from their total isolation from the education that might help raise their standard of living.  Other Aboriginal groups lack English skills or are hurt by plain poverty.  Any responsible government will take steps to relieve distress and assist people to play their full part in the affairs of the nation.  The way to do that, however, is by treating everyone as a full Australian -- not separating them into ethnic and racial categories.  We should be building on what we have in common, not emphasising our differences.

An example of a program that has backfired is the Land Rights Act in the Northern Territory, designed to improved relations between Aborigines and the rest of the community.  This woolley-minded paternalism has much to answer for.  Land is granted to appease the non-Aboriginal conscience in the large cities, but Aborigines are not allowed to use it freely because paternalists do not think the black man is sufficiently mature to behave responsibly.  For example, Aborigines are prohibited from selling, leasing or trading their land -- thus shut out from most of the activities that would make their land an economic asset.

On top of this, some Aborigines have used land rights as a lever in their effort to carve out an Aboriginal nation -- something that has never existed.  Land Rights and a treaty simply cannot create a nation out of a people who constitute but one per cent of Australia's population and are scattered about its vast continent.  From the other side, some non-Aborigines have used the record of land rights to suggest that avarice, bad faith and gullibility are the hallmarks of agreements with Aborigines and their advisers.  In the eyes of many Australians, therefore, as Aborigines have won more land, they have lost much good will.  It would be a tragedy were this source of racial disharmony to be enshrined and perpetuated by any sort of treaty.  Most likely, such a treaty would be used as the thin edge of the wedge to push for the forming of an Aboriginal nation.  If successful, any number of new issues would arise:

• Would the Aboriginal nation, with its capacity to act in relation to the Commonwealth, be able to act in relation to other states as well -- Libya for example?  Would it have rights and obligations under international law?
• Would it have standing in international organisations, the Warsaw Pact for example?
• What would the government of the Aboriginal nation be?
• What would happen to Australia's position of Australian sovereignty in matters such as resources, transport, communications and trade?

Despite these misgivings about a treaty, I am optimistic that the future of Aborigines will be bright once the taint of paternalism can be eradicated.  Some months ago the Economist described US policy toward its native peoples as ''helping those who want to join the mainstream society and building wigwams for those who don't''.  In Australia, younger people especially are drifting away from the wigwams, looking for a place in Australia's contemporary society.  They must be allowed to change and grow over time, just like any other people, so that they are not condemned to permanent dependence.  Many Aborigines are making a go of it in mainstream Australia.  They don't parade their Aboriginality, they just get on with living as Australians in today's world.

WELFARE SCRAP-HEAP

Yet they often come up against unnecessary obstacles.  Government policies over the past 20 years have priced Aborigines out of the job market.  The 1967 Aboriginal stockman's case that required equal pay for Aborigines ultimately made their employment unprofitable.  While this may have been a historic court event it left thousands of Aborigines out of work and placed them on the welfare scrap-heap.

Indeed, $2 billion has been spent on Aboriginal welfare over the past 10 years.  Much of it has been wasted on an unnecessary bureaucracy and projects that were doomed to fail from the outset.  The Department of Aboriginal Affairs, to name but one, should be abolished and direct funding provided to local Aboriginal Councils in rural communities.  Greater opportunities should be made for Aborigines to enter the private sector, and the disincentives for them to make their own way must be removed.  In this way Aborigines would not only benefit themselves, but their participation in the economy would make for a more productive Australia.

Aborigines played a part in developing Australia Aboriginal troopers and soldiers defended it.  They want to share in Australia's future -- not contest it.